Wolfman,
you aren’t really advocating the position that all federal laws are facially invalid, are you?
Sigh … Not knowing anything about a subject, or wanting to find out either, never stops you from issuing pronouncements on it all the same, does it? At least you’re admitting it this time.
OF COURSE water and sewer systems have limits. OF COURSE they are, at least in large part, sized by the volume they have to handle. The plumbing in your house is limited by volumetric capacity, not mass solids, and a sewage system is just a big plumbing system. If you’d understood my earlier post even slightly, you’d come to realize that there are effects of housing growth on them and their own growth capacity, too.
Since you ask about sewer systems and storm drains, yes, they are commonly combined in some US cities (i.e. Boston) and separate in others. Sewage treatment plants (which are apparently nearly unknown in your Canada, per the link I provided, so it’s no wonder you don’t know about them) are often overwhelmed during rain and discharge less- or untreated sewage into wherever they discharge to, i.e. Boston Harbor. But it doesn’t rain more than a few percent of the time, and sewage is treated most of the time, so yes, it does matter.
Now, friend, when you say something that violates basic common sense, then yes, the burden is on you to support it. “Changing things” has nothing to do with that.
Now what was that in GD about liberals being more intelligent than conservatives?
I said “if”, didn’t I?
I suppose I have been influenced from growing up on a Texas farm where we got our water from a wind-powered pump (we occaisionally had to conserve water during those times when the wind scarcely blew; electric pumps were unaffordable); from living in Central Florida which has a drought-followed-by-flood climate and frequently hearing warnings to conserve water lest we cause more sinkholes to form by lowering the water table; and from currently living in Los Angeles which has suffered numerous droughts that affected not just local wells, but also the various out-of-city sources.
So you think the law should be modified so that people with their own wells who also live where water is abundant can buy whatever kind of toilet they want? Write your congressman; it’s all you can do to get the law changed.
Stop trying to be offensive. Show me where I uttered a single factual pronouncement about sewer systems. I asked YOU to back up YOUR assertions.
And I regularly admit when I don’t know something about a subject, as I just did. The fact that you chose to pounce on my honesty and attempt to use it to obcure the fact that YOU don’t have a clue what you’re talking about is pure sophistry. Well, I’m not letting it go. You want to argue the facts behind this, then run along and research it. YOU are the one using this sewer capacity argument to justify an intrusive new government regulation. This puts the burden of proof on you (ESPECIALLY since I have never heard this argument brought up before with regards to low-flow toilets). I asked you to provide evidence for your own assertion. You have failed to do so.
But allow me to tear apart the your line of reasoning here:
Of course they have limits. How do you get from there that low-flow toilets are necessary, or even desirable? How are the limits set? Emergency flow capacity in case of storms? Are toilet flushes significant factors in overrunning those limits? You know, I’ve never heard of a sewer system overflowing because of a mass toilet flush, even during those apocryphal Superbowl halftimes.
If we’re just picking hypotheticals out of our butts, I could come up with lots of hypothetical reasons why low-flow toilets might actually hurt the system. Like, perhaps sewers are designed to require a certain amount of water flow with a volume of solids, and lowering it causes problems. But I don’t have a clue, so I’d never think of using that as an argument.
As for the cheap shot about me being stupid, I’ll be happy to be judged on the record of my posts, thank you.
Okay, I’ve done a bit of research, and came up with some interesting tidbits.
This, from the Ann Arbor “Sanitary Sewer Overflow Prevention Newsletter”:
This would tend to support my instinctive belief that sewer system capacity is sized to handle storm events, and that low-flow toilets are completely irrelevant.
On the other hand, it seems that low-flow toilets do reduce sewage treatment costs. New York and L.A. have both reduced sewage disposal budgets because of their low-flow toilet programs.
Incidentally, if the main public argument is that low-flow toilets save money in waste disposal, then you don’t need government mandates, because the market can handle it. For example, some Municipalities have offered rebate programs for the purchase of low-flow toilets. I’ve got no problem with this. You could also allow people to sign up for programs that cut the sewage treatment rates on their utility bill if they have low-flow toilets.
But I’ve still seen absolutely zero evidence that the infrastructure can’t handle the volume of waste water.
I think the issue is the extra demand of a full-flow toilet for fresh water, not the waste capacity of the sewer system. Perhaps by mentioning sewers in my first post, I got the argument going in the wrong direction. It’s probably the local water department that should be setting the standards.
The reasoning that led up to the regulation probably went like this: Demand for water must be reduced. We can either charge more for water, which people will not like (and which may have to be put to a vote), or we can require the use of low-flow toilets in new construction, which most people probably won’t even notice. Now, it was a miscalculation to think that most people wouldn’t be inconvenienced by a 1.6 gpf toilet. But 1970s vintage toilets use up to 7 gpf, so there is clearly a middle ground. I’ve made the point that the argument (as Stossel framed it) isn’t so much over the technical merit of low-flow toilets but rather the right of the government to set any standards at all.
The free-market alternative would be to raise water prices until people realize that it’s smart to use a low-flow toilet to conserve water. Now, you can’t reduce the number of uses of the toilet unless you want to start taking a walk in the woods with a little shovel, so you have to change the toilet. But who decides what kind of toilet to install? It’s almost always the builder, not the person who pays the water bill. Even though water prices have gone up, the builder has practically zero incentive to install low-flow toilets. To solve the problem, you have to wait for home buyers to start demanding low-flow toilets from builders. Then, the builders have to start demanding them from the manufacturers. This sort of thing takes a long time, and depends on the good sense of all parties involved, which contrary to what libertarians and liberals alike will tell you, has never been a smart thing to bet on. This is one case where I’d rather rely on a bureaucrat to come up with a solution rather than leaving it to the scrotum-gobbling, cheek-spreading, glans-slurping hoi polloi. (Gotta use terms like that or people don’t pay attention anymore).
I don’t see how it’s any different from, for instance, a building code. Sure, you could abolish the building code in favor of a free market. Then, after buildings start falling down, burning down, collapsing in minor earthquakes, etc., the consumer finally starts to demand a higher standard. It’s a high price to pay to maintain the purity of the free market.
Aside: I ran across several articles about low-flow toilets, and they all characterized the problem as one of wet tissue clogging the drain. You’d think experts on plumbing would be comfortable with the word “feces”.
As I said, there are lots of market-based solutions. First, resources should be allowed to float with market values. Part of the problem we have with the way our resources are allocated is that government acts as an intermediary in many cases, and they usually find out that it’s politically expedient to fix prices. That’s not a good thing, and you should be especially against artificially low resource prices if you are an environmentalist. If you are worried about price manipulation or seasonal price spikes, you can agree to buy longer-term contracts. Here in Edmonton, owners can opt into yearly payment plans that fix the price of energy for the year. When the utility has enough of those plans signed and in hand, it uses them to buy long-term energy contracts, rather than buying power on the spot market.
But even given the fixed price scheme, there are other quasi-market alternatives. And these were actually in place and gaining in popularity before this legislation was enacted. For example, if you want builders to install low-flow toilets, how about giving them a rebate? If a rebate makes the low-flow toilets less expensive, the builder will go for it every time, unless homeowners strongly object.
Or, you can set up a registration system that allows people who own low-flow toilets to get a break on their utility bills.
For existing homes, you can set up a buy-back program where people can trade old toilets in for low-flow ones and receive a break, either in utility payments, municipal taxes, or an outright cheque.
Just flatly mandating what type of toilet you must use is the worst of all solutions. It limits freedom, and eliminates the flexibility to adjust for regional conditions.
Just as a small aside, here’s an article from the Honolulu Advertiser showing how the gut reactions of those who are against bio-engineering actually ruined some important non-genetic engineering research:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2000/May/29/jan.html
Probably the saddest thing they did was this:
CityGent, a fine summary there. Of course, those still wanting to fume over anything Da Gubmint does that limits what they see as their own freedom are probably mostly bored to death with this thread already, or have gone to some other forum where they won’t have their worldviews challenged and can reinforce each other instead.
Sam, I’m as glad as ever to see that you’re absorbing the facts and reasoning that have been presented here by a number of patient posters, however agonizing a process that may be.
You have no reason to be offended by presentation of facts and reasoning that you were previously unaware of. This forum is, after all, devoted to “fighting ignorance”, and anyone who takes it personally needs to reconsider. Those trying to help you understand views you do not share are, however, entitled to some frustration at your refusal to address questions and rebuttals presented to you, as well as your penchant (which I think you will admit) for first offering long-winded critiques of subjects you admit (or demonstrate) factual ignorance of.
Until the day arrives when you can recognize this, you will indeed be judged by your posts.
Oh, save me your sanctimonious crap. I haven’t absorbed anything here, I went out and did research that YOU failed to do. And you still didn’t address the fact that your claim that low-flow toilets would help prevent sewers from overflowing was almost completely wrong. And may I remind you that you implied I was stupid for not seeing that ‘obvious’ conclusion, even though the logical holes in your argument were big enough to drive a truck through.
You’ve been offensive and insulting all through this thread. I make an honest statement that I don’t know much about sewer engineering, and you take me to task for ‘making pronouncements’ on something I don’t understand. Then I do some actual research, and it turns out that YOU didn’t know what you were talking about, and proposed a defense of low-flow toilets that was apparently made up of whole cloth. And now you want to pat me on my little head for seeing the light? Bite me.
It looks like it’s only the people that either accept Stossel’s premises or reject them that are speaking up.
Naturally, Stossel chooses the more extreme viewpoints to ridicule–that’s what makes the program watchable. How much one considers his targets straw men depends on one’s assumptions.
Originally posted by tclouie
As far as the Native Americans go, he’s just trying to reverse a lot of the romanticism surrounding “primitive” people.
Nonetheless, it’s an interesting book. (Although since it’s a popularization, something may have been lost in translation, and I haven’t gotten access to the citation that seems to be about the teeth. On the other hand, I’ve heard something similar about teeth before.) The book also points out that most people in those days were slaves or otherwise in thrall to others. Not a good thing, one thinks. And on the very next page, the authors claim (convinced me) that people actually preferred life like that. Similarly, whether their teeth were rotten or not doesn’t matter so much as how they felt about it. Either they considered it normal & acceptable or not. Assuming progress, a hundred years from now, people will wonder how we ever managed to get through life as we did. It seems to be the same way with low-flow toilets: either you’re satisfied with the govt regulation or not.
My basement toilet suffered a sewage surge the day before yesterday (for the first time). Who should I blame?
Stossel uses standard reporting techniques for television - let me quote Virginia Postrel:
I think this is completely accurate. A while ago, Diane Sawyer did a show on guns in which she took a bunch of very small children and gave them some toys to play with, including toy guns. The kids gravitated towards the guns, ‘proving’ her point. Did you hear any outrage over the abuse of children over this? Any claims that the test was rigged? Where was the outrage of the parents in lending their children to do a test with a biased outcome?
John Stossel used the children because children make for good television. He also wanted to prove a point that their environmental ‘education’ has gone beyond teaching the issues and has turned into indoctrination. For all those claiming that he used leading questions, Stossell has kept all the outtake footage from the dailies, and has offered to show them to any group that thinks he may have biased the responses. Funny how not a single group has taken him up on his offer to view the dailies.
This is IMHO.
You may criticise Stossel.
You may support Stossel.
You may NOT criticise each other’s views.
Knock it off, or I’ll lock it off.
Me. And I’m truly sorry. 
Listen, the whole toilet capacity thing would be a non-issue if low flow toilets actually got rid of our crap efficiently. I don’t care whether the government has the right to regulate toilet capacity. But in this case they made a terrible mistake, which has wasted far more water with double, triple, or quadruple flushes than it has saved! Fine, let’s save water! How about a system that actually saves water, eh?
I’d love to have a lower water bill. I’d also like to get rid of my crap. If I can do both at the same time, I’m happy. But if I can’t get rid of my crap then I’m unhappy, no matter how low my water bill is.
The purpose of a toilet is to get rid of crap. If it doesn’t perform the function for which it was designed, then it is a defective product. And if it cannot perform the fuction for which it was designed because it is against the law to install a functional toilet, well then that law is a stupid law.
First make sure you can design a low flow toilet that works, before you make it a crime not to have one. Why are you people defending a law that doesn’t work? Nobody would be complaining if the toilets worked, but they don’t. We passed a law for the purpose of saving water, but it had an unintended consequence…we couldn’t get rid of our crap. Pointing out that laws frequently have unintended consequences does not mean that we shouldn’t have laws…only that we should have as few laws as possible.